• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.

    Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Checkpointing interesting points in simulations and rerunning with modified parameters happens literally all the time

      Especially weather / climate / geology and medicine

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re re-run, though. You don’t change the parameters in the middle of the simulation. That goes against the point of simulating something.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t rerun everything from scratch. Especially weather simulations can be checkpointed at places you have high certainty, and keep running forks after that point with different parameters. This is extremely common with for example trying to predict wind patterns during forest fires, you simulate multiple branches of possible developments in wind direction, humidity, temperature, etc. If the parameters you test don’t cover every scenario that is plausible you might sometimes engineer it into the simulation just to see the worst case scenario, for example.

          And in medicine, especially computational biochemistry you modify damn near everything

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Simulations of boats in water don’t care about what’s happening to the water much of the time yet it needs to be there, you seem to be way too confident in your conclusions

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.

                • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you don’t know what they’re testing that could certainly seem excessive. But failure of imagination doesn’t prove it’s impossible, although you can argue it’s unlikely